Travis R. McDonough
How Judge McDonough decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Telecommunications Act claim, the judge distinguished evidence that a new facility would merely improve or 'densify' an already-adequate network from evidence of an actual existing coverage gap, and declined to import a broader FCC standard that the Sixth Circuit has not adopted.
“The Court will not adopt this standard. Sixth Circuit precedent outlines the test for evaluating an effective prohibition under the TCA.”
In assessing a retaliation-adjacent tortious-interference claim, the judge focused on whether the loss complained of was itself the retaliatory act or merely an incidental consequence of it.
“Plaintiff's loss of his TRICOR job was incidental to the alleged retaliatory act.”
Procedural preferences
Before dismissing a pro se prisoner case for failure to prosecute, the judge worked through all four Sixth Circuit Wu/Knoll factors (willfulness, prejudice to the defendant, prior warning, and consideration of lesser sanctions) rather than resting on the procedural default alone.
“The Court examines four factors when considering dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b): (1) whether the party's failure is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault; (2) whether the adversary was prejudiced by the dismissed party's conduct; (3) whether the dismissed party was warned that failure to cooperate could lead to dismissal; and (4) whether less drastic sanctions were imposed or considered before dismissal was ordered.”
Cautions
The judge treats an unsigned pro se complaint, or a missed deadline to cure one after explicit warning, as sufficient grounds for dismissal with a certification that any appeal would be frivolous -- pro se status did not excuse compliance with straightforward procedural rules.
“Plaintiff's pro se status did not prevent him from complying with the Court's order, and Plaintiff's pro se status does not mitigate the balancing of factors under Rule 41(b).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Erlanger's motion (Doc. 117).”
“Plaintiff has not presented a basis for relief under Rule 54(b), and accordingly, the instant motion (Doc. 24) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, this motion (Doc. 11) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's initial motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot.”
“Plaintiff's initial motion to proceed as a pauper (Doc. 1) is DENIED as moot.”
A pro se prisoner's Section 1983 complaint was screened and dismissed for failure to state a claim and for failure to prosecute after the plaintiff did not file a timely amended complaint despite an explicit warning that his case would otherwise be dismissed. This was a sua sponte screening disposition rather than a ruling on a party motion.
“the City's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23) is GRANTED, and Vogue's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 16) is GRANTED”
“The Commissioner's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) is DENIED”
“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 18) will be GRANTED, and this action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 19) will be GRANTED; Plaintiff's claim will be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and the Clerk will be DIRECTED to close the case.”
“Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 56 in Case No. 1:17-cr-109; Doc. 1 in Case No. 1:22-cv-217) is DENIED.”
“Plaintiffs, who are self-represented, cannot adequately represent a proposed class as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (Doc. 7).”
“Nothing in the filings before the Court indicate any of the individual Plaintiffs are incapable of adequately representing themselves. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. 8).”
“Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his complaint (Doc. 70) is GRANTED. This action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).”
“Defendant Thomas's request for attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (Doc. 73) is DENIED.”
“Defendant Hamilton County's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 57) is GRANTED”
“As such, Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled 2021 civil docket spans personal-injury, insurance-coverage, employment-discrimination, consumer-credit, civil-rights, and prisoner cases. Most sampled matters ended through settlement or stipulated dismissal before a dispositive ruling; one produced a summary-judgment decision.
Put Judge McDonough's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge McDonough actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge McDonough's own signed orders and cites them.